As for Tyndall , the theological flaws in his works are bandied about in most secular objective histories of this period and I would suggest you immerse your in the history of the period before making any more misinformed statements.
Of course we are all still waiting for an informed reply asked by the originator of this thread concerning the infallibility of Luther in defining what books belong in the bible. It is a sad commentary that ones of your ilk cannot and will not answer these legitimate questions since your position rests with an imperfect foundation and thus is logically incoherent
“Your assertion that “People risked their lives to buy and distribute” in no manner supports your fallacious contention that literacy was pervasive...”
Good point. People risked their lives to get something they couldn’t read...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“What objective historical support can you offer to categorically support your contention literacy in any universal sense existed during this period?”
That wasn’t my contention. There were more than enough literate people to create a demand, and the Catholic Church chose deliberately not to fill it. They left people who could read hungering for the word of God, because they feared what would happen when commoners DID read God’s Word.
“As for Tyndall , the theological flaws in his works are bandied about in most secular objective histories of this period...”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one ever came up with any, which is why his work ultimately was the basis for the DR Catholic Bible...at least, the DR Bible most Catholics know, which used the KJV as its basis and then adjusted for Catholic theology.
“Of course we are all still waiting for an informed reply asked by the originator of this thread concerning the infallibility of Luther in defining what books belong in the bible.”
That has been answered at least 100 times on this thread. YOU choose to shut your eyes and not read the answers. But then, you shut your eyes to the Word of God, since your church theology is more important to you than the ‘breath of God’!
The issue with Bible literacy is that Rome could have been committed to Biblical literacy but was not, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=352#352 while as for
How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
The second presumes a negative answer to the first, and that sola scripture always requires a finished canon.
The first has been responded as referring to how writings were established as Scripture before Rome’s claims, and without an assuredly infallible interpreter, and by such means those who hold to SS have an assuredly infallible body of books by which to judge and establish truth by.
Regarding how Scripture was established, “its means of establishment was essentially the same as how a true man of God is established as such, by his/her unique qualities and supernatural effects, which conform to that which God prior established by the same means. The manna from heaven owes its enduring acceptance to what it is and thus does, more than church decrees, as valid and helpful as they can be.” See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=314#314
The fact is that Rome herself did not have an infallibly defined canon before Trent, as documented in post 213 which you might have missed, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2661829/posts?page=217#217, nor was Luther the first to exclude certain books. Yet she did consider whatever belonged to that class of revelation called Scripture to be authoritative, as do those who hold to SS, though Rome effectively makes oral tradition equal to it, and herself the supreme authority. And yet she has no final complete infallible canon of either tradition or infallible pronouncements.
While the canon has become settled after the same manner that O.T. books were considered Scripture by the time of Christ, sola scriptura essential means that whatever books are considered to be Scripture are the supreme authority on doctrine, Scripture being the only objective authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus assuredly infallible. In contrast, this is not provided for Rome’s formulaic (scope and content based) infallible magisterium, and its claim to be so effectively rests upon its own declaration to be infallible, when speaking according to its own infallible defined criteria.
We know that the early church did teach infallible truth in Acts 15 as it is recorded in Scripture, and was solidly based upon Scripture and scriptural attestation. But to extrapolate out of that a formulaic infallibility for whatever Rome decrees is another issue, and for the pope you must convince both the EOs as well as the Prots.